Talk:Warren Kinsella

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).
This page is about an active politician who is running for office, is in office and campaigning for re-election, or is involved in some political conflict or controversy.

Because of this, this article is at risk of biased editing, talk-page trolling, and simple vandalism.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography. For more information, visit the project page.
Portal:Biography
 Biography Portal
Start This article has been rated as start-Class on the Project's quality scale. [FAQ]
(If you rated the article, please give a short summary at comments to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses.)
This article is supported by the Politics and government work group.
Troll warning This discussion page may contain trolling. Before you post any reply, consider how you might minimize the effects of trollish comments. Simply ignoring certain comments may be the best option. If you must respond, a temperate response is always best, whether trolling is suspected or not.
This article is a frequent source of heated debate. Please try to keep a cool head when commenting here.
Prior messages at Talk:Warren Kinsella/Archive1; Talk:Warren Kinsella/Archive2

Contents

[edit] Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Warren Kinsella

Arthur Ellis is banned indefinitely from Warren Kinsella and articles which relate to Canadian politics and its blogosphere. Any article which mentions Warren Kinsella is considered a related article for the purposes of this remedy. This includes all talk pages other than the talk page of Mark Bourrie. For the Arbitration Committee. FloNight 04:19, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Lawsuit

I see that in the Mark Bourrie entry, the lawsuit has been dropped from the page. Since the Lawsuit seems not worthy of mention in the Mark Bourrie entry, he who has not had as an illustrious career as Warren. Then I see no reason why not to remove it from the Warren Kinsella entry. Pete Peters 18:59, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

I'm fine with that. The editor at Mark Bourrie noted (in the edit summary) that it was a minor legal threat and just a couple of letters. It doesn't need to dominate either entry the way it had. --JGGardiner 19:42, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Ah, Mr. Peters... if, War, I can call you Mr. peters... back like the proverbial rash now that editing by IPs is banned again... same day IP Warren tried to soft-soap the entry again. Kinsella's lawsuit threats against bloggers should stay. After all, he is a lawyer. He should know better. Plus Bourrie was only threatened twice, while Warren has threatened seven bloggers (at last count)209.217.93.193 20:35, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Plus, you might want to keep in mind, it wasn't Bourrie's idea to be threatened with a slap suit. It is Kinsella's way of keeping critics quiet (not particularly effectively, by the looks of things).Arthur Ellis 20:50, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

And way to go trying to soft-soap Gomery. Like you know all about Alex Himmelfarb (the Chretien stooge) and the ex-Privy Council clerk's views on the role of political aides. Yea, right. You didn't even bother to try to source that one. We worked hard on the Gomery consensus, and now you think you're going to re-Kinsellize it? Dream on, War. I like the Gardiner version, which shows there was a plan, and you, I mean Warren, was one of the guys carrying it out.Arthur Ellis 20:41, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Please do not refer to we, when we was nothing more than a bunch of random IPs based in Ottawa. IPs that like 209.217.93.193. Pete Peters 20:59, 18 July 2006 (UTC)


You might want to read through these pages again, Warren (if we can drop the Pete Peters hicksville charade for a moment). Yes, you left in a snit both times, but people actually toiled away in good faith without you. It can be done.Arthur Ellis 21:04, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

You are hilarious. I disagree with everyone else, your contributions to Wikipedia have resulted in a rational, NPOV, non vandal filled medium where one can get honest information. Pete Peters 21:20, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Take your flame wars elsewhere. Arthur Ellis 21:24, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Yeah Arthur you tell him. You tell... Oh wait... you were referring to yourself. Pete Peters 21:27, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Ok, I think it's time that everyone here ceases this behavior and discuss the issue in a civil manner and not accuse other editors of trolling or being socks. We need to show respect as this is clearly a hot topic. Yanksox 21:29, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

We -- a bunch of Wikipedia editors, some of whom could barely get along -- spent a lot of time on this page (despite what PP says). Each time, PP flounced, then came back to try to change the entry. Earlier today, an anonymous IP began editing it into Kinsella PR and whitewash. Once it was protected, PP started making ths same edits. What are we to think?Arthur Ellis 21:34, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

I think that you should cool off for a while. Pete Peters 21:56, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
I think both of you should spend a few minutes away from Wiki and come back with a clear, open, and understanding mind. Yanksox 21:59, 18 July 2006 (UTC)


Fine by me. I want the page to stay as it is. I think anyone who wants to know what happened here need only read the (very long) discussions. It's all here on the record. Probably best for everyone to leave this entry alone, block IPs. In fact, Wikipedia should block IP editing altogether.Arthur Ellis 22:01, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

No page can be semi-protected forever. Everyone is just going to have to learn to live each other. We don't have to agree with everyone else or even like them but we do have to work things out as a community. Remember, disputes happen -- that's not a problem; the problem is when disputes are handled badly. --JGGardiner 22:30, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

As soon as it's unblocked, Kinsella will be back under an IP to re-write it. 209.217.119.12 03:30, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Well that's a first. I've come across users who don't like anonymous editors but never an anonymous editor who doesn't like anonymous editors. --JGGardiner 04:51, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Kinsilly has always edited this page under an anonymous IP.209.217.123.92 12:57, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

The policy is to allow users to edit anonymously, like you are doing. Semi-protection won't keep a subject from editing a page. It just stops anonymous edits. The subject could just register and edit with an account. If he was bold he could even do it openly, as the autobiography guidelines are not actual policy. I'm sure Kinsella's a smart guy and if he wanted to edit this page he'd probably create an account. An account actually gives you more anonymity because it doesn't flash your traceable IP to everyone who passes by. --JGGardiner 15:19, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

I prefer to use an anonymous IP. That way, if some idiot puts trash on your talk page, it, along with your IP (if you have my server) are gone every few hours. If you have a static Ip, that would be different. Wikipedia, however, would be wise to make people register with real names and e-mail addresses, since the project is now infested with cranks and ax grinders, myself included (whoever I may be). Having anonymous editors and writers, working under Internet handles, is both unscholarly and a recipe for vicious litigation. Seeing people who I know to be profs hiding behind fake Wikipedia IDs to grind political axes that they're too gutless to grind in real life is particularly pathetic. Signing my tydles is silly, but I'll do it tobe polite. 64.26.147.136 19:33, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Well welcome aboard. Cranks are allowed to edit here although axe grinding is generally discouraged. --JGGardiner 21:33, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Pete Peters edits

It would be proper and polite for Pete Peters to discuss his edits on this page before making them. He just did one on the Gomery section that wasn't particulary controversial, but he should have discussed it here first. 64.26.147.136 21:50, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Well, actually we assume good faith here, at least with established users who have not abused the privilege (too much) in the past. So if you register, chances are you might be able to make edits all over the joint without actually being questioned on it all the time. - CrazyRussian talk/email 22:55, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

My, my, my... they don't teach manners in that little law school of yours, do they?64.26.147.136 23:16, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Hello all!!! How has everyones Wikiday been? I have made a slight edit to the opening line to the Gomery Inquiry. The other version makes it sound like he had a big role in the whole affair, which we not to be true. For all you Americans out there!!! :) The Gomery report explored many avenues much like the Warren Report. So just by working in the Ministry of Public Works, would result in testifying at the inquiry. Crzrussian, one day I will become an American citizen, just you watch. :) Pete Peters 23:34, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Actually, Peters is not correct. Kinsella tried to implement the ad strategy at the heart of the scandal. He also introduced two key figures at the heart of the racket: Chuck Guite, the bureaucrat who handed out the inflated ad contracts, and Jean Corriveau, the Liberal Part executive and prime ministerial crony who accepted the kickbacks from the ad agency. Kinsella was no bystander. 64.26.147.136 23:40, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for that POV, but I think the article should have a NPOV. I think others would agree with me that a NPOV article is in the best interest of Wikipedia. Have a happy Wiki day!! :) Pete Peters 23:44, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

A true article is in the best interests of Wikipedia.Arthur Ellis

Hey ladies - one day we might yet be friends, that is if I don't commit suicide, despondent over trying to mediate your little war here... - CrazyRussian talk/email 23:48, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
And manners are forbidden for lawyers in the U.S. We must learn obnoxiousness from the start - it's the legal way! - CrazyRussian talk/email 23:49, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
Phew... Arthur you are here. Hoooooo-RRRa, for a second I got scared. There was this anon user from Ottawa, and he was like in total agreement with you. And for a second I thought there might be more than just one person who has the view of Arthur Ellis. Well, glad to see you back, it is great to see that you only make edits when a page has been semi protected. Have a happy wiki day. !!! :) Pete Peters 23:52, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Actually, I only make Wiki edits when someone tries to play with the truth or, to be more charitable, is wilfully blind to history.Arthur Ellis 23:59, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

How would you know? It is not like you are a reporter who works on Parliament Hill. :) So raspberry (plplpllplplplpl).. so there. I know who would know, that blogger at OttawaWatch, he has a WK fansite, I am sure he knows the truth. Maybe we can get his banned lifted so he can edit on this page. :) Pete Peters 00:06, 20 July 2006 (UTC)


Actually, I read the Gomery report online and also read the news stories that are used for reference in the article.Arthur Ellis 00:11, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

The link to the Globe and Mail story about the Daisy Group srating up no longer works. I doubt we really need a reference since the company itself has a link on the entry.Arthur Ellis 00:35, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Paging Mr. Bourrie - Paging Mr. Bourrie

[1]

[edit] Merge Debate

I was wondering should we just Merge the Mark Bourrie entry as a paragraph in the WK entry? Pete Peters 01:46, 20 July 2006 (UTC)


Put up the template and we'll see. Arthur Ellis 01:59, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

I am not too sure how to do it. But thank you Arthur for deleting my question on the Mark Bourrie discussion page. Pete Peters 02:03, 20 July 2006 (UTC)


Well, if outing Wikipedia editors is your bag, perhaps you should tell us all about yourself. If you think people really want to see the Bourrie and Kinsella pages merged, go ask one of your admin pals to do it for you. Or quit making mischief.Arthur Ellis 02:04, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Huh? Pete Peters 02:06, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
Perhaps I should re-phrase. Without Kinsella, Bourrie would have never gotten a wiki entry. My point is not to merge the two, but to make Bourrie a paragraph in the Kinsella entry. Pete Peters 02:10, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Put Bourrie up for deletion, then.Arthur Ellis 02:59, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Use {{mergeto|Warren Kinsella}} - CrazyRussian talk/email 03:04, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Stop the war!

Or be blocked and/or fullprotected. Arthur, you've already reverted thrice. Both o' ya - stop it, or I will have to stop it for you - something I would like to avoid. - CrazyRussian talk/email 03:04, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Why are you letting them vandalize the agreed-on version? Arthur Ellis 03:16, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

There is clearly not a consensus here if we have an edit war. Could you provide a diff that shows the version was agreed upon? We must remember not to accuse editors of vandalism when their edits are not vandalism, but a part of a content dispute. Remember to assume good faith and recognize that, believe it or not, everyone is here to build an encyclopedia and improve the article in some way, just people have different views on what makes an article better. Cowman109Talk 03:19, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

I no longer have the ability to understand wtf you guys are even arguing about. All I know is that for one revert #4 after I delivered the final warning, you, Arthur, are being blocked for 24 hours. I am sorry. - CrazyRussian talk/email 03:20, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

To "Arthur": I didn't agree to this version, and I can't believe that any sensible person would consider the sentence which begins with "Interestingly" to be NPOV. CJCurrie 03:21, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Then take out "interestingly" and quit blocking large amounts of material.Marie Tessier 03:31, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Who are you?? - CrazyRussian talk/email 03:45, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Well that 24 hour block lasted a whole..what 5 minutes Mr. Bourrie. FYI admin Marie Tessier is another Bourrie ID, look at one of the entries on Ernst van de Wetering, that's a relative of Mrs. Bourrie. Mr. Bourrie once posted that his wife's uncle was the famous Ernst van de Wetering...

222.108.88.103Bitz

Oh sorry... Mr. Mark Bourrie aka : Arthur Ellis, numerous Magma IP's in Ottawa, Ceraurus, Isoleteus etc...

I'm a friend of Arthur Ellis, and I know you have adopted the cause of a handful of Canadians who are exquisitely dishonest, known losers like Warren Kinsella and his 48-year-old diversity NASCAR driver Pierre Bourque (BTW, does being rich and stupid make one a minority these days?). Doesn't bode well for a young lawyer. But I see you have all day and all night to be on Wikipewdia, so I doubt you'll have much of a real legal career when or if you graduate. Maybe Jimbo will hire you.Marie Tessier 03:53, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Can you - or anyone - cogently explain to me why there's such a tremendous war over these few articles? What is your and/or Arthur's dog in this fight? Please, it's about time I knew... - CrazyRussian talk/email 04:05, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Looks like Marie's gonna take one for the team! (A little tear trickles down my cheek). Au revoir, au revoir...

So Mr. Bourrie has returned to numeric Magma IP's 200.123.132.177 04:09, 20 July 2006 (UTC)bz

[edit] What is disputed?

Alright, then, what specifically is disputed? Specifics, please. Vague references won't assist anyone here. Do we have issues with certain facts? How they are represented? Please explain so we can make some progress. Thanks. Cowman109Talk 04:29, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

We've done that before, believe it or not... - CrazyRussian talk/email 04:38, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
I don't think that this is about content at this point. We seemed to have moved past all the big stuff and it looks like little edits caused little comments, then edit wars and then big comments. --JGGardiner 04:48, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
Hm. Well from my observance it seems much of this tension is due to beliefs of sockpuppetry and POV due to being affiliated with Warren Kinsella or opponents of him in some way. But there has to be some specific content that's disputed. Otherwise there's no dispute? This is definitely quite perplexing. Cowman109Talk 05:18, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
Yes, minor ones, like I said. That's really the problem: editors have been chasing one another all around the encyclopedia reverting every minor edit that another user has made. For example, this conflict extended to Tony Ianno for a time. But it had nothing to do with the content in that article. The core of the content dispute was really resolved a week ago. But by that time there were already lingering personality disputes that no WP admin. can really resolve. --JGGardiner 05:38, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
Methinks, after a month or more of running around after these guys, we need to shlep the whole lot of them in front of the ArbCom to get them banned from this page and to put the on one of these one-revert-per-week deals - because this was is beginning to seriously grate on my nerves... - CrazyRussian talk/email 11:15, 20 July 2006 (UTC


What's being disputed is how much of a role Kinsella played setting up a kickback scheme that cost the Canadian taxpayers $100 million (not including another $100 million to investigate). The exposure of the kickback system (govt. ad money from very padded invoices to ad agencies, kickbacks from the agencies to the Liberal Party) resulted in the biggest scandal in Canada in 130 years and the Liberals losing power in Canada. Probably didn't get much coverage outside Canada, but Canadians know exactly what this means, eh.

This dispute is not one of semantics. Kinsella wrote a book about how to be a vicious political operative. Now that he's looking for work as a lobbyist, he wants this entry to be as soft on him as possible. In Canada, being caught in this scandal is political and career death.

Bourrie, on the other hand, is a Parliamentary reporter and historian who, according to his blog, has had some kind of ideology-shaking epiphany over this scandal. Seems to drive him into a spit-flecked rage (members of his family helped found the Liberal Party 150 years ago; his family's always been Liberal).

Bourrie believes Kinsella originally wrote this entry as a vanity project (the IP actually does prove that). He thinks Pete Peters is Kinsella's friend Pierre Bourque, who runs a Matt Drudge-knock off web page, and, at 48, just began racing in a NASCAR entry league as a "diversity" driver. Bourque and Kinsella, in real life, cross-promote each others' projects.

In the new Pete Peters version (originally written by an IP that edited out many of the Kinsella negatives a few days ago), Kinsella is cast as a bit player, not a major actor, in the scandal.

You can look at the present version -- the one Bourrie and his friends (and there are more than one, mostly Parliamentary reporters) want to keep and see if it's sourced and solid, and at the IP/Pete Peters version and make up your own minds.

In the big picture, it doesn't really matter much. What's done is done, and Kinsella's life won't change because of a Wiki entry. Neither will Bourrie's, but he should get control of his temper. Must be that rarified academic/political air.

Hope that helps.64.26.170.192 11:22, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

I have stated in comments made above that I will ban myself from this page, as long as Arthur and Ottawa based IPs originating from the National Library, and Magma service provider can do the same. (i.e. 64.26.170.192. I would like to leave this page altogether, but one simple edit I make, will always result in a complete revert. Please see Hamilton Centre, many times with no explanation. It tickles my goat, the complete disrespect for others by a user who I strongly suspect uses anon IPs from Ottawa. The truth is that I do not frankly care what goes into the entry. But when one individual is allowed to dominate this page with what I percieve as a POV and axe to grind, I feel that it is unjust and goes against the spirit of Wiki. Sorry for the Harsh language, I really do apoligize to all Admin people that have had to divert too much of their time and energy to this page. Pete Peters 13:48, 20 July 2006

Try arguing with facts. Twice this page has been fought over. Both times, you flounced, then came back and changed the page. I say leave the page as it is, ban Ellis, Peters, IPs, from the page.Marie Tessier 13:52, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Hello Marie Tessier, I noticed your account has been linked to this RCFU entry. Perhaps I should have included your account into my statement above. Pete Peters 13:59, 20 July 2006 (UTC)


Again, he dodges the facts.206.191.33.126 14:08, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Uh-oh... RFCU came back "likely". Hi Arthur! - CrazyRussian talk/email 14:16, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

careless, lazy and stupid are such bad combinations in a would-be lawyer. WTF does "likely" mean? Maybe in Russia that's proof, but not in America, fuckwad. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Marie Tessier (talk • contribs).

If there's an explanation to be had, now would be a good time. Thanks for the kind words. - CrazyRussian talk/email (a.k.a. Fuckwad) 14:52, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
Can you believe WP had no article for "fuckwad"? I just created one, it redirects to Fuck. I think that's the first useful thing to come out of all this. --JGGardiner 15:10, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Too low on the food chain to get a job with a firm this summer, Alex? Let's see some proof. Or does that go against your ingrained fascism?

I've got no "proof". I don't have checkuser privileges. Ask User:Mackensen. And stop trolling. - CrazyRussian talk/email 15:05, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
I believe that Admin Bucketsofg✐ should step into this debate. He is an expert on this issue, and has just returned from a wiki break. Pete Peters 15:06, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Indefblock for Marie

(copied from user talk:Mackensen:

Mackensen - what does "likely" mean? Indefblock for the sock or not? - CrazyRussian talk/email 15:24, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

It means likely sockpuppetry and definite meatpuppetry. I leave it to your discretion. Mackensen (talk) 15:25, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

On the basis on the RFCU and the non-stop personal attacks, I am going to indef-block User:Marie Tessier. - CrazyRussian talk/email

Page is now sprotected due to ridiculous amounts of dynamic IP trolling. - CrazyRussian talk/email 16:27, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Retiring from Warren Kinsella

With this post, I am taking this page off my watchlist. I am not planning to edit, revert or protect any related page ever again. Another admin would have to be asked to unprotecty this article. You've been a miserable bunch to know. Hopefully some of you can learn to edit productively. But I - I have taken too many hits here over the past months and a half. I am not a masochist - and now I am gone! Have a good life, each and every one o' ya. - CrazyRussian talk/email 16:45, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Arbitration

Please be advised that RadioKirk has filed an arbitration request over the continued edit warring over this article. 20:16, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

The case just came to a close. -- Geedubber 03:00, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Legal action against blogger

Somehow this:

"In an interview with Here Magazine, Kinsella said "bloggers have believed too much of their own hype and part of that is believing (without explicitly saying) that they are above the law. They are not."[1]"

got removed from the article. I think it improves the article since it reveals some of Kinsella's thinking at the time. I want to add it back. Anyone object?

Looks fine to me. It may have been nipped by one of the anons who are screwing around here today. (I've requested semiprotection, for the record, since we're now on the third anon IP vandal making the same changes.) Tony Fox (arf!) 20:11, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Picture

  • Is that picture serious? I mean, until now, I hadn't seen an example of a picture on Wikipedia that violated WP:NPOV in and of itself, but that one certainly does. Is there a reason that picture was chosen (besides to embarass the subject of the article)? If not, I will put up a more professional photo. -- Chabuk 01:38, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
That picture is from his publisher's webpage promoting his book[2]. His website links to it on the main page. Geedubber 03:11, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
True dat. Kinsella likes to portray himself as a down-to-earth, folksy kinda feller; hence the constant "slice of life" anecdotes in his otherwise political blog. If anything the photo is NPOV in his favour. Geoff NoNick 03:49, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
  • shrug. Huh. Well okay. Thanks for the answers -- Chabuk 04:23, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
If you can find a better picture, feel free to put it in. I am not sure if we could use this -- looks like a publicity photo which may be eligible for use on Wikipedia under the doctrine of fair use. Geedubber 06:08, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] request for protection

I see that a user has asked for re-protection in an edit summary. I'm the admin who removed it in the first place. Given that there has been one reversion in the past two days, I don't see how it falls under the continuous and long-term vandalism normally required under WP:SEMI. If the argument is that the anon is the banned user mentioned above, I'd be happy to throw on a block if someone would spell out why they are the same person. There's always the possibility that it would again degrade to a sockpuppet war, but it may be worth seeing if the page can survive without protection. - BanyanTree 17:23, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Still have the same opinion? Anyway, it is likely that the IP represent two factions, Kinsella himself, who has never registered an account as far as I know, and Mark Bourrie, another Canadian blogger, who edits as User:Arthur Ellis, and who is banned for one month per Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Rachel Marsden. Unfortunately Ellis is quite adept at changing his IP address, and this article gets targeted within hours of having the sprot removed, so both these guys are clearly watching it. Thatcher131 18:12, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
There's hardly been enough time for me to change my opinion, but I'm happy to remove this from my watchlist and leave it to someone who knows the background. - BanyanTree 19:52, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
That wasn't quite what I had in mind. :) By changing your mind I was referencing the article history, several more reverts after your comment including this charming essay. But I guess I can watch these two charming examples of Canadian political discourse if I must. Thatcher131 19:57, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Sponsorship scandal/Gomery inquiry

I don't care how the section is titled, but since the main article on the event is called Sponsorship scandal and has lots of sources, it seems silly to make a point of it in this article one way or the other. Thatcher131 17:56, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Okay, since Kinsella is named in Gomery Commission but not in sponsorship scandal, how's this? :) RadioKirk (u|t|c) 18:10, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
Gomery Commission and linking to Gomery commission seems like the marginally preferable solution (I don't feel terribly strongly, so call it a 55/45 preference.) It does seem that Kinsella had only a peripheral role in the scandal itself and is more notable for his comments about the inquiry on his blog. Thatcher131 18:31, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
Seems we're agreed. :) RadioKirk (u|t|c) 18:36, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Blogger Lawsuits

Seems like we have consensus re: the Gomery Inquiry/Sponsorship. Looking at the material about his lawsuit against bloggers, is there any reason why the rest of the bloggers are not mentioned by name, or that Bourie is singled out? Is he the only one who apologized, and, in Canada, isn't an apology a way of limiting your exposure to punitive damages? I think there needs to be some kind of streamlining of this for consistency's sake, preferably by someone familiar with Canadian blogging and your libel laws. On the Bourie entry, Thatcher131 makes the excellent point that a threatening letter from a lawyer only costs about $50, and hardly constitutes a lawsuit. Stompin' Tom 14:53, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Yes, there is a reason why the rest of the bloggers should not be mentioned by name: they are not notable. Bourrie is notable -- notable enough to earn his own article on Wikipedia. Also, if you read the Mark Bourrie talk page, you will see that you and Thatcher131 are wrong about the lawsuit. It wasn't just a threat of a lawsuit. On the Mark Bourrie talk page, Bourrie himself weighs in to state, in the clearest and most emphatic terms, that Kinsella filed suit. Surely if one notable writer accuses another notable writer of libel and files suit, and the second notable writer publicly apologies for having made it look like the first notable writer committed a crime -- surely that is worthy of inclusion. 142.51.16.155 19:37, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
If you have any reliable sources other than Bourrie and Kinsella's own statements and blogs I would like to know about them. At this point there is an Ottawa Sun article stating that Kinsella filed a "statement of claim." That's all. It is interesting for the Kinsella bio as the first libel suit against a Canadian blogger. Hoewever there is nothing more in the press. Bourrie and Kinsella's blogs are not reliable sources, but as long as they both agreed that a settlement had been made, it was acceptable to include that information. Now, however, Bourrie claims the terms of the settlement have been voided by Kinsella's actions. I don't care about their spat, but I do care that there are no longer any reliable sources discussing the outcome of the claim. Since anyone with $50 can get a lawyer to file a "statement of claim" and there are no reliable sources on the status of the claim, I feel the principles of BLP and NPOV#Undue weight support removing the case altogether, at least until such time as further reliable sources are available. Thatcher131 20:46, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Actually, the "defining moment" lawsuit threats were those of 2004. The Kinsella-Bourrie lawsuit is a convulted thing. Kinsella sent Bourrie a threatening letter, then a statement of claim. That's slightly more than happened with the other bloggers, but, as Thatcher131 says, it's not much. A lawsuit is something that gets into court. This was settled with an apology and a small contribution towards costs. Frank Magazine does this kind of stuff all the time. At the very least, a lawsuit is "won" when a party gets a cash award by a judge. In this case, Kinsella then may or may not have queered the deal by talking too much about it and breaching a confidentiality agreement. There appears to be a second case that consisted only of threatening letters back and forth. Despite what Kinsella says on his own web sites, these are not lawsuits, they're just bluster. I doubt very much, with the long history these two have, that either one could bring an action against the other that wouldn't be tossed. 209.217.93.81 03:14, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Do you have refs for the '04 threats? Might be noteworthy. Thatcher131 03:24, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Read back through this talk page. There was a lot of discussion about blogger suits before the threat against Bourrie. You'll see, if you look at older versions on this entry, that the blogger suits were featured back in 2005. Googling "Kinsella" and "lawsuit" turns up quite a few hits, but, again, they always involve a threatening letter, either by Kinsella or his lawyer, and a quick settlement. In Ontario, a lawsuit involves statements of claim and defence, mandatory mediation, examination for discovery, and trial. This, of course, is a hellishly time-consuming and expensive process. None of Kinsella's "lawsuits" have ever jumped the first hurdle. 64.26.170.212 12:28, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Why can't we say that Kinsella accused Bourie of libel and filed suit against him; that the two reached an out-of-court settlement when Bourrie apologized for having made it look like Kinsella was a party to illegal action; and that Bourrie later said that the settlement fell apart because Kinsella had violated its terms. All of that is factual, NPOV, verifiable, etc. 142.51.16.155 19:38, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

I suppose it all depends why we are including this information. I think that I've seen two points of view here. The first inclusion seems to be, as 142.51.16.155 pointed out, that it is somewhat extraordinary that a prominent writer would make the mistake that Bourrie did, even if inadvertent. The second, which the "defining moment" inclusion intended to demonstrate, was that Kinsella was heavy-handed, pouncing on Bourrie's inadvertent mistake and that this had a (perhaps deserved) chilling effect on the blogging community in Canada. In either case, the actual rightness of Kinsella’s claim isn’t really relevant. In the first, the notability arises from Bourrie’s mistake (and apology), if you agree with 142.51. In the second, the possibility that Kinsella was wrong actually reinforces the impression that Kinsella was heavy-handed. Like I said, I’ve stayed out of editing this one but I don’t think the settlement makes the episode less notable than a full-blown lawsuit would have. --JGGardiner 19:59, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

I don't pass judgement on whether Bourrie or Kinsella were right or wrong. I do agree with JGGardiner that regardless of who was right or wrong, the event was notable. Our job is to find a way to present it in a neutral light and let the reader pass his/her own judgement. Eliminating it because it is a touchy topic does not seem appropriate. 142.51.16.155 21:40, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Actually, the way the post was written, a person might -- and it was quite a stretch -- think Kinsella, not Chuck Guite, was the central player in the Sponsorship Scandal. Rather than litigate the meaning of the word "he" in one phrase, Bourrie apologized to make Kinsella go away. Again, not exactly precedent-setting. It's all on the Kinsella blog that Bourrie keeps, www.kinsellasux.blogspot.com. And, again, it was the 2004 series of legal threats, not the 2006 ones, that were called "defining events" in Canadian blogging in old versions of this entry. 64.26.170.212 23:51, 15 December 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Sources

Kinsella-hater Bourrie has a new site up: http://mdbourrie.googlepages.com/kinsellaarchives. It has links to Kinsella documents on the Internet -- committee testimony, Kinsella at Gomery, reports of lawsuits. May be useful for sourcing, especially once it is expanded. As well, this article needs serious work with sourcing still and the Kinsella - Bourrie lawsuit stuff has been restored despite consensus and lack of non-participant sources. Happy Fun Toy 23:01, 5 January 2007 (UTC)


BTW, this new Kinsella archives site has much more about Kinsella's litigation, and a payout to someone who sued Kinsella for libel.209.217.124.237 23:23, 6 January 2007 (UTC)


[edit] Slapp suit silliness

This entry is wrong. For what it's worth, I am not being sued by Warren Kinsella. I was given a statement of claim, which has since been dropped. Unfortunately, newspapers are good at reporting these types of things when they start, not so good on folowing them up. If you care about the truth, you'll fvind some way of fixing or re-writing this stuff. Mark Bourrie —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 142.78.64.223 (talk) 20:10, 16 January 2007 (UTC).

[edit] Uncited Material

Isn't it about time the uncited material on Bourrie was removed? I think an administrator should do this. Warfarin eater 18:35, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../w/a/r/Talk%7EWarren_Kinsella_0a1a.html"